SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed on the following prayers, vide para 7 (i) and (ii):

(2.) IN reply, the following stand has been taken on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 4, vide para 6 (i to vii & viii (a to f): 6 (i to vii & viii (a to f): - That in reply to these paras it is submitted that the facts qua engagement of applicants as TGT (Arts) on contract basis are admitted. It is also submitted that as per the terms of the agreement of contract, the Respondent had agreed to pay the applicants the pay scale of Rs. 1650 -2925 (pre -revised). However, it is submitted that the replying Respondent did not enter into an agreement with the applicants, that during the terms of agreement if the pay scale of Rs. 1650 -2925 are revised, the same would also be paid to them. It is worthwhile to mention here that the nature of the services of the applicants is contractual and the contract agreement regulates the services of the contractual employees and determines the liabilities and duties of both employer and the employee. The parties are governed by the terms of the contract and cannot claim anything beyond the same. The terms of agreement do not contain any stipulation that the applicants would be entitled to the revised pay scale as granted to regular employees from time to time. In this regard the kind attention of this Hon 'ble Tribunal is drawn to the H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 which in fact authorize the Respondent to revise the pay scale of its regular employees only. It may be submitted that there is a clear stipulation in these rules that they would not be applicable to contractual employees. This rule is quoted in H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 at page No. 1, para 2, sub para 2, Clause (f) which follows as under: Para 2 (2). They shall not apply to the: - "persons employed on contract basis except when the contract provides otherwise." Thus, it is incorrect for the applicants to state that they are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 5480 -8925 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 on the analogy of regular employees. It is further submitted that vide letter No. Shiksha -II -Kha (12) 2/99 dated 23.5.2003, the replying Respondent had issued instructions of payment of revised pay scales to the contractual employees i.e. Lecturers (School Cadre),TGTs and other C&V teachers. However, specifically when the Respondent No. 1 found that the aforesaid letter was issued for the release of revised pay scales by the replying Respondent without prior concurrence of the Finance Department which is mandatory under relevant provision of Rules of Business of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, 1971, the same was withdrawn on the advice and guidance of Respondent No. 1. So far as justification and legality of letter No. Fin (TR) B (7) -14 -2003 dated 22.10.2003, the Respondent No. 1 has submitted detailed reply in this regard in other so many cases of similar nature, which is affirmed. It is submitted that the services of the applicants are covered under contractual agreement and as per the stipulation in the agreement of the contract neither applicants nor the employer i.e. Respondent could travel beyond the scope of the contract agreement. It is denied that H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 are automatically applicable to the applicants. It is worthwhile to mention here that the rules stated hereinabove clearly state that these shall not be applicable to the persons employed on contract basis. It is submitted that revised pay scales were released to the applicants erroneously without resorting to codal formalities, specifically the necessary sanction without obtaining from the Finance Department. It is, however, submitted that revised pay scales were released contrary to the provision of H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay ) Rules, 1998 and was also released in contravention and without prior concurrence of the Finance Department which in fact is mandatory to obtain under Rule 9 and Rule 34 of the Rules of Business of Govt. of H.P. 1971. The erroneously release of revised pay scale was, therefore, withdrawn by the replying Respondent on the advise of the Respondent No. 1. The payment so received by the applicant has, therefore, been ordered to be recovered. The recovery of the revised pay scale to which the applicants were not legally entitled is legally sustainable and the applicants have No. ground to challenge the same since the applicants are bound by the stipulations of contract agreement which do not provide that the contractual employees shall be entitled to the revised pay scales from time to time. An erroneous order cannot have any legal sanctity and an error can be rectified at any stage and needs not be repeated. The applicants cannot claim any right from a benefit which has wrongly been given to them and been rightly withdrawn. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not permit the repetition of a wrong action, therefore, there is No. discrimination against the applicants.

(3.) IN view of the above, if on facts, the case of the Petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove in CWP (T) No. 10806 of 2008, Inder Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the Petitioner is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment along with consequential benefits, if any, shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copies of this judgment and the judgment referred to hereinabove by the Petitioner before the Respondents/competent authority.